If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Re: 11 September 1683

I won't lie it looks pretty bad. It seems to me to be a propagandist anti-Islamic film even if this is not the primary story of the film. No doubt the Ottomans are the bad guys even though they may try to give a non-objective point of view. I would have been much more surprised if they tried to tell a story about say Jan Sobieski or something like that. Instead they went with the usual biasedly confused last stand historical movie like Pearl Harbor, 1612, 300, Frederick Barbarossa, Fetih 1453, the Alamo etc (I would mention Waterloo but Waterloo is not biased and actually is more about two warriors that rival each other). They will probably go all over the place, give no character development, tell a seemingly biased story where "not all of the bad guys are bad" and then make you cheer for "the good guys". To top it off it looks like they screwed up the clothing for the Ottomans. If this were a movie about Jan Sobieski and actually told a story about war (like perhaps Kagemusha) and Jan Sobieski in said war then perhaps it would be many times better. Also this trailer seems to make a big deal about the whole islam conquering the world thing.

"Famous general without peer in any age, most superior in valor and inspired by the Way of Heaven; since the provinces are now subject to your will it is certain that you will increasingly mount in victory." - Ōgimachi-tennō

Re: 11 September 1683

No, there are no interesting character among the Ottomans. I really don't want to know about whatever useless Sultan was leading this attack. I would rather they make a film about Jan Sobieski. This film IS on the wrong path with the title, it feels like it was made by Christian fundamentalists or something. Also the Ottoman clothing is COMPLETELY WRONG. Someone here mention 1453 as did I, last thing we need is a European version of that movie. The premise fails then if it is a contrast to the modern war between Islam and Christianity, there is no such war happening I see only two groups of fundamentalists bashing each other.

"Famous general without peer in any age, most superior in valor and inspired by the Way of Heaven; since the provinces are now subject to your will it is certain that you will increasingly mount in victory." - Ōgimachi-tennō

Re: 11 September 1683

No, there are no interesting character among the Ottomans. I really don't want to know about whatever useless Sultan was leading this attack.

Actually, it was a Grand Vazir (who afterwards got a "you have failed me for the last time, commander" from the Sultan). Just in case you wanted to know

I'd rather see an expensive and historically accurate film about this topic with many extras, involving the film industries of the countries whose predecessors were involved, like Germany, Austria, Poland, Hungary, maybe Italy, and of course Turkey. Maybe even Hollywood, as long as they only contribute their money and professional expertise, and not their "Hollywood tactics" or heroics based concept of battles.
Sadly, that's probably never gonna happen. Turkey probably wouldn't cooperate, the EU would try to cancel the project because it's not politically correct and there's not enough female Janissaries, Hollywood studio bosses would insert a romantic sub plot, France would insert a homoerotic romantic subplot, and Germany would try to make it a boring, angst-ridden guilt trip. Oh and somebody would get the idea to film it all in New Zealand, because as we all know since LotR, New Zealand IS Austria. So yeah.

Re: 11 September 1683

That is what I find so confusing, where Frederick Barbarossa involved Italians why is 1683 made by Italians? Is this movie funded by the Pope so he can bash Islam or something?
Also the Grand Vizir screwed up badly and got executed for it but yeah, Sultan Mehmed IV is probably not a cool character to make a movie about and neither is Kara Mustapha Pasha. It should be about Jan Sobieski or a movie Like Gettysburg or Waterloo where it's a movie about both generals that are fighting it out with more emphasis on Jan Sobieski seeing as he is probably the better character (like how in Waterloo there was lots of Napoleon or in Gettysburg there was lots of Robert Lee).
In fact this 1683 film should be made by whoever it was that made the Deluge or Fire on the Steppe.

"Famous general without peer in any age, most superior in valor and inspired by the Way of Heaven; since the provinces are now subject to your will it is certain that you will increasingly mount in victory." - Ōgimachi-tennō

Re: 11 September 1683

Despite what the other movies were, the first one was decent and if there is no Polish nationalism then what is there in 1683? Not Polish nationalism but is it any better? With Fire and Sword and the Deluge was cinema and they weren't bad films although certainly inaccurate. At least the first movie was at least a decent film (which are also based around good pieces of literature), this looks so bad I'm gonna put it right next to Pearl Harbor, 300, Frederick Barbarossa and 1453. Although you said that 1683 is inaccurate, inaccuracy in With Fire and Sword seems to be the only thing that should bother you.

"Famous general without peer in any age, most superior in valor and inspired by the Way of Heaven; since the provinces are now subject to your will it is certain that you will increasingly mount in victory." - Ōgimachi-tennō

Re: 11 September 1683

Actually Pearl Harbor is a historical movie with a love story at random. But 300, well you got me there.

"Famous general without peer in any age, most superior in valor and inspired by the Way of Heaven; since the provinces are now subject to your will it is certain that you will increasingly mount in victory." - Ōgimachi-tennō

Re: 11 September 1683

I found quite amazing how 300 followed real historical events though ... despite the fantasy creatures and the fictional approach ...

After all it's all a description in third person ...

It could be a plausible description if you imagine , a Spartan Warrior , telling the story of the 300 spartans to an audience , he romanticizes and exagerates it , so people imagine monsters and creatures, heroes and villains ... It's not a direct take on history , but a description of how it could be interpreted history throught a ancient novel comentary of a survivor ...

Re: 11 September 1683

300 is also not supposed to depict history, its supposed to depict a Comic Book.

Anyway as for the Italians, Austria owned or held influence in most of Northern Italy at the time, so there probably was thousands of Italians among the Austrian forces. Still does not explain why they felt the need to produce this and compare it to 9/11.

There is a miniseries on the Prussian/Austrian war on poor little Denmark coming out in this spring i think. For the foreign language enthusiasts out there.